The Sun. — London, England, 1836-08-05 00:00:00

W :crying. I recollect one of the servants asking how I had oton. I said, " I can't tell." She said, " Has it brought a a *. I said " A person must have a heart of stone that could help crying. There was that dear Mr. Stretten on one side of the fire-place, looking quite pitiable, and my mistress on the other, looking like a ghost." I did not say, " I think what I have said will get the poor dear man off." I said, when I went up stairs, in answer to my fellow-ser vant, " Here is Mr. Stretten come in my master's absence : I will tell." It was merely said in joke. I left Mr. Camp bell's service on the 13th of May. Esther Dale was called and examined by Mr. THES aIGER-I am the wife of the clerk of St. John's chapel. I know Mrs. Poole, and had some conversation with her about her daughter. She said she was such a liar she could not believe a word she said. _ The JUDGE having summed up the evidence, the Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, One Farthing. SECOND EDITION. SUN OFFICE, Seven o' Clock. THE LONDON GAZE FTE THIS EVENING. DOWNING-STREET, AuG. 3, 1836. The King has been pleased to appoint John Austin, Esq., to be his Majesty's Commissioner of Enquiry into the affairs of the Island of Malta. WHITEHALL, AuG. 3. The King has been pleased to nominate the Rev. John Hobart Caunter, 8.D., to St. Paul's Chapel, in the parish of St. Maryle bone, in the county of Middlesex and diocese of London, void by the resignation of the Rev. John Crofts, A.M. WAR-OFFICE, AUGUST 5. 30th Regiment of Foot —Staff-Assistant-Surgeon J. Cockburn to be Assistant-Surgeon, vice J. Bomford, who retires upon half pay, August 5. 35th Foot—Lieut. J. Fordyce to be Captain, by purchase, vice Seton, who retires ; Ensign 0. N: Chatterton to be Lieutenant, by purchase, vice Fordyce ; J. F. Gordon, Gent., to be Ensign, by purchase, vice Chatterton; Ensign E. Wheatstone to be Adjutant, vice Paris, who resigns the Adjutantcy only, August 5. 55th Foot—Ensign W. Gibbens, from the half-pay of the 2d Garrison Battalion, to be Ensign, repaying the difference, vice Gibson, appointed to the 41st Regiment, August 5. 68th Foot—Lieutenant M. D. Taylor from the 80th Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice North, who exchanges , August 5 . 80th Foot—Lieut enan t J. North, from the 68th Regiment of Foot, to be Lieutenant, vice Taylor, who exchanges, August 5. Royal African Colonial Corps—W. Snowe, Gent., to be En sign, with out purchase, vice Kerr, whose appointment has not taken place, August 5. HOSPITAL STAFF. Staff-Assistant-Surgeon W. S. INl‘Creenie, from the half-pav, to be Assistant-Surgeon to the Forces, vice Cockburn, appointed to the 30th Regiment of Foot, August 5. WHITEHALL, AUGUST 1, 1836, , The Lord Chancellor has appointed Robert Mawdesley, of South port, in the county of Lancaster, Gent., to be a Master Extraor dinary in the High Court of Chancery. BANKRUPTCY SUPERSEDED. SAMUEL PHILLIPS, grocer, Falmouth. BANKRUPTS. LEWIN FENNER, fancy cabinet-maker, Rawstorne-street, Goswell-street-road, to surrender, Argust 12, at eleven, end Sep tember 16, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Abbott, official assignee ; Murray, London-street, Fenchurch-street. JEREMIAH ISRAEL NATHANSON, merchant, Bury street, St. Mary Axe, Aug. 18, at twelve, and Sept. 16, at half past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Alsager, Birchin-lane, official assignee ; Burt, Aldermanbury. JOHN MORRIS, jun., grocer, Wandsworth, Surrey, Aug. 18, at one, and Sept. 16, at two, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom, Abchurch-lane, official assignee ; Addis, Queen -street, Westminster. JOHN TOPPING, cattle-dealer, Wigton, Cumberland, Aug. 22, and Sept. 16, at eleven, at the Crown and Mitre Inn, Car lisle. Alounsey and Gray, Staple Inn ; Evart, Carlisle. JOHN BARKER, Sudbury, Suffolk, grocer, Aug. 13 and Sept. 16, at twelve, at the Six Bells Inn, Bury St. Edmunds. Ransom and Tiffin, Sudbury ; Dixon and Sons, New Boswell-court, Lincoln's Inn-fields, London. LEWIS AUGUSTUS BENNETT, merAant, Crutebed Friars, Aug. 16, at two, and Sept. 6, at half-past eleven. Groom, officsal assignee, Abehureh-lane ; Vandercom, Comyn, Cree, and Law, Bush-lane, Cannon-stroet. JOSEPH PARSONS, grocer, Brill, Buckinghamshire, Aug. 8, at two, and Sept. 16, at ten, at the Roebuck Inn, Oxford. Litchfield and Owen, Chancery-lane, London ; Lee. Ducklington, near Witney, Oxon. COURSE OF EXCHANGE.-(THIS DAY) Amsterdam C.F. 12 5t I Leghorn •S4 Ditto, at sight Rotterdam "U. 12 5 1 /, Milan.. 11 Antwerp... .^ 47 Hamburg. \LB l3 13 \ aides 404 Altana Paris, 3 days' sight ‘..''', LO ' Li•hon ~,,,, Ditto ....................:2 Us f.,ts 90 I (Iporto 551 i, Marseilles .23 80 lino Janeiro 3ll', Frankfort OR Maine, Ex. M. 1524 ' Bahia Petersbuigh, ruble 3 ',ls, In I) i Buenos Ayres Isarlin . 7 3 I Dublin, 21 days' sight ...... ...... 11, Vienna, effective 11 2 NT. 11) 10 I Cork Trieste ditto ......•• ..... ...... 10 11 Madrid ' i PRICE 01 , BULLION, PER OZ Cadiz 371. E l'ortnf_Tal Gold, coin ,E 0 0 0 'Whoai-orei{nGum, in bars 3 17 1 01 / • Barceiona r , ,r% New Mu!Aeons Swine SIN New Dollars Gibraltar IMPEIIIAL PARLIAMENT, (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS. The SPEAKER took the Chair at a few minutes to four o'clock. Mr. OSWALD presented a petition from the hand loom weavers of a piece in Scotland, COLD plainiog of distress. On the motion of Captain CHETWYND, the Horton's Estate Bill was read a third time and passed. LEITH AND NEWHAVEN RAILWAY. Sir A. L. HAY presented a petition from Edinburgh, in favour of the Edinburgh, Leith, and Newhaven Rail way Bill, and a petition from the fishermen of Newhaven to the same effect. On the motion of Mr. OSWALD the Report of the Committee on the Leith and Newhaven Railway Bill was further considered. DISSENTERS. Major BEAUCLERK presented a petition from the Dissenters of the town of Kingston, expressing much satis• faction at the Bill for the registration of marriages. They further stated that if their claims were not taken into con sideration next session, they would take the law into their own hands, and redress themselves. Mr. WI LKS seconded the petition. Major BEAUCLERK presented a petition from the parish of St. Helens, in the Isle of Wight, against any enactment for making the whole island into one parish. Also a petition against the P oor L aws A men d ment B i ll. Mr. OS WALII presented a petition from Glasgow, in favour of the Scotch Municipal Bill. The Hon. Member also presented a petition, signed by 12,000 i n h a bi tants o f Glasgow against the Scotch Municipal Reform Bill ; also petitions to the same effect from places in the neighbour hood of Glasgow. Mr. WALLACE presented a petition, numerously and respectably signed by the inhabitants of Ayr, W a ll ace _ town, &c., praying for an enquiry into the practice before the Scotch Law Courts. Mr. SCARLETT presented a petition from the owners of manors in the county of Norfolk, against the Manors' Court Bill. Mr. WILKS moved that the returns respecting can teens, which were on the table, be printed.—(Ordered.) He also gave notice that, on Thursday, he would move for the production of papers connected with the petition of Mr. Divett. Mr. HAMILTON presented a petition from the Dis senters of Dublin, praying for an inquiry into the mode of education in the College of Maynooth. SPIRITS EXCISE BILL. Mr. BARING brought up the Report of the Com mittee on this Bill. The Militia Ballot Suspension Bill went through Com mittee without observation. ASSESSED TAXES BILL. On the motion of Mr. BARING, the Assessed Taxes Bill was read a third time and p asse d . The Dropped Orders of the Day for Thursday last were then read over for the purpose of being replaced upon the Book. COAL TRADE. On the motion of Mr. WAKLEf,the Coal Trade Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Wednesday. The Sunk Island Road Bill went through a Committee. Mr. BARING brought up the Report of the Committee on the Slave Compensation Bill. FREEMEN. Mr. WAKLEY, in the absence of Mr. Williams, moved for a return of all the persons admitted to the freedom of cities and boroughs returning Members to Parliament in the years 1833, 34, and 35.—Agreed to. Mr. EWART moved for a return of the number of Bills sent up from that House to the House of Lords and not returned; also a return of the number of Bills sent back from the House of Commons to the House of Lords, which had not yet received the Royal Assent. Mr. WILKS thought it better to postpone the motion altogether, as it was impossible, in his opinion, to adopt any proceeding at the present moment. Mr. BARING said there could be no objection to them up to a certain period, as the returns were already pre pared.—Agreed to. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Mr. BARING, it was agreed that the House, at its rising, should adjourn till Monday. Mr. HINDLEY presented a petition from a person of the name of John Wright, of Oldham, in favour of the Ten Hours Factory Bill. The Hon. Member also presented a petition, signed by 3,000 female operatives of Stockport, praying for a Ten Hours Bill. He also presented • ••• • 26 petitions wit a simi r yer rom rious parts of the country. He hoped that no time would be lost in the en suing session in the introduction of such a measure, and passing it into a law. NAVY LIST. Sir E. CODRINGTON presented a petition with re ference to the motion of which he had given notice from Mr. Ronayne Milner, who complained that his name had been erased from the Navy List, and praying that means should be afforded him of proving the injustice of the punishment inflicted upon him. The Hon. and Gal lant Admiral presented petitions to the same effect from Lieutenants Lee and Bryant. Mr. C. WOOD was happy to inform the Hon. and Gal lant Admiral, and the House, that circumstances had been brought to the knowledge of the Admiralty which satisfied them that the charges made against Lieut. Bryant were wholly without foundation. As a matter of course, Mr. Bryant's name would be restored to the list.—(Hear.) Sir E. CODRINGTON said that this circumstance showed the propriety of the parties being brought face to face.—(Hear, hear.) TROUTBECK'S ESTATE. Mr. WAKLEY presented a petition from an individual of the name of William H. Troutbeck, praying, if the House appointed a Committee to inquire into the fact of who was the next of kin to Samuel Troutbeck, that he might be heard by Counsel to establish his claim, of which he had no doubt but the would be able to produce sufficient proof. TREASURER OF THE NAVY. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, before the House went into Committee of Supply, wished to ask a question of the Go vernment. Towards the end of last Session cer tain resolutions had been come to, for the purpose of consolidating the offices of Treasurer of the Navy, Paymaster of the Army, and Master of the Ordnance. They had now arrived at the last day of Supply, and he had seen the Navy and Army Estimates, in which all pro visions for these offices was omitted ; and what he wished, therefore, to ask was, whether those regulations were pro pared, whether any estimate was to be submitted to the House, whether the money had been paid on the sth of July, and if paid, out of what fund ? Mr. BARING, who was very indistinctly heard, said that the resolutions to which the Right Hon. Baronet referred, required very great consideration ; but he believed they were in such a state of preparation as would enable them to be shortly submitted to the House With respect to the payment of the salaries it was quite true that in accordance with the resolutions they had been suspended, but as under the circumstances these resolutions had not been carried into effect, the proper course would be to submit a separate vote for the payment of those salaries. Sir J. GRAHAM thought it would be very irregular to pay money without a regular vote of that House ; at the same time he must say that the postponement of these salaries would be a monstrous proceeding when it was no fault of the parties. He regretted that these regulations had not been laid upon the table, and he would add that he should be sorry to see the office of Treasurer of the Na%y abolished, as it had been in his opinion an ex tremely well-conducted one. CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND). The report of the Committee on the Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill was further considered. TEXAS. The Order of the Day for the House going into a Com mittee of Supply having been read, Mr. B. HO Y rose to move an address to the King re specting the trade in slaves in the Texas. If the House favoured him with its attention, he promised that he would not detain them long. The question was a very important one to this country, as we had there property to the amount of not less than seventy millions of dollars. The Texas bad already been dissevered from Mexico, and might fall along with the islands of Porto Rico into the hands of the United States. He had before asked whether the Texas would not be bound by the treaties into which she entered, when forming part of the Mexican territory, relative to the slave trade ; and the Noble Lord (Palmerston) then an swered, that if the Texas remained after the conclu sion of the war, part of the Mexico, she would be bound by the treaties entered into with this country at that time. But he had the opinion of the Noble Lord on another point to quote as a precedent in this case. The Noble Lord, in answer to a question from him had stated that Holland was bound by all the treaties made by her when joined to Bel gium, after the separation of the two countries. The war going on then was not a war of independence or for liberty—it was a war for slavery, and the Texas had been most unjustly assisted by the Southern States of the American Union. He should be able to prove all this, but he was anxious not to weary the House with long extracts ; he would, however, trouble them with a few. The Hon. Member then read several documents to show, that it was the intention of the Americans to take the part of the Texeans, and by that means overpower the Mexicans. Now what, he would ask, was the object of that ? Why, an expectation on the part of America of the annexation of that State with the Union.—( Hear, hear.) The last State that joined itself with the Union did so on the basis of doing as it pleased in respect of slavery, and he had not any doubt if the Texians and the Americans were united they would carry on the slave trade. The Noble Lord would perhaps tell him whether he had not within the last ten days had applications from the Mexican Govern ment, requesting the Government of this country to remon strate with the American Government on its gross violation of treaties. The Hon. Member then read several extracts for the purpose of shelving that the American Government was favourable to the Slave Trade. It would be for the country to consider whether, after the enormous sums they were expending, and had expended, in putting down the slave trade, and abolishing slavery, they were prepared to act so as to render this expense wholly useless—to retreat from that position in which as anation they had taken the lead, in abolishing slavery, whether they were prepared to give up all those advantages, and that position, and to allow slavery to take a deep root, when they had the power and the right of interference and suppression. The annual expense to Great Britain for the abolition of slavery was, and for the settlement at Sierra Leone 40,6951. — Hear.) For the:support of captured negroes 25,000/., for the mixed commissions, 16,000/. There were also twelve vessels of war employed on the coast of Africa. The whole of the expenditure, including the interest of the money, would amount to a sum of 1,100,0001. per an num, calculating the interest at 3 per cent. The way the Slave Trade was carried on was worthy of remark. A quantity of vessels left Cuba for the coast of Africa—the number of which had increased rapidly. In 1833 there were 30 vessels ; in 1834, there were 60 vessels, and in 1835 there were more than 80 vessels engaged from Cuba alone. The greater part of those slaves he had no doubt went to Texas ; and a calculation had been made that at least 13,000 slaves annually had been introduced either directly into Texas or in the immediate neighbourhood. which he considered to be a gross violation of the treaty with Mexico. If the Government of the United States got into possession of Mexico, there could be no doubt that America would establish great and important commercial power. she would then have the finest mercantile position in the world. There could be no doubt also that she would then get possession of mining districts, which would be of immense value—not less than 30,000,000 dollars being taken from one mine alone annually. Unless Mexico was assisted by this country, she would be weakened to that degree' that she would fall an easy prey to the ambition of the United States. He therefore called on the House to agree to an address to the Crown, praying his Majesty would take such measures as to him might seem proper for the fulfil ment of the existing treaty with Mexico. He would ask whether this country was riik bound to remonstrate in a friendly mantler with the United States ? He would go further, and maintain that it was our duty to have had a naval force to protect the Mexicans and prevent the aggressions on the part of the United States. The Americans, by debts, much exaggerated no doubt, had got the Floridas, and the St a t e o f L ou i s i ana ceded to them. As Spain was now getting largely into our debt, he did not see that we could do better than take possession of Cuba and Porto Rico. He would not trouble the House with any more extracts, for he thought he had made out a complete case for his motion, and he claimed the support of all who were sincere in their desire for the abolition of slavery. Mr. WARD seconded the motien. Hon. Member s importance of not, perhaps, be aware of the great of Texas to the intercourse of this country with Mexico, it had perhaps: one of the finest coasts in the world for commerce. The Ame r i can G overnmen t h a d l o ng fixed its eyes on Texas, an d th ey h a d l a tt er l y poure d a large population Into that country, in order, if possible, to secure posses sion of it.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Finding, however, they were defeated in obtaining it by that means, they had taken advantage of the late political disturbances in Mexico to endeavour if possible, to obtain it ; He ref erre d to the report ' of the Committee of Foreign Relations of the United States, to show a desire on the part of the St ates to recognise the independence of Texas. There were two point s t o b e consi d ere d in the discussion of this question. The first was of general importance— namely, whether it was advisable, considering the nature and extent of our foreign relations with Mexico, to allow the United States to extend th e i r terr i tor i es to the south by taking possession of Tex as ; an d another consideration was one of humanity, for he was sure th a t no person, w h o was acquainted with the evils and miseries of the slavery that existed in the southern States of the Uni on , cou ld d es i re to inflict the same upon human beings, or allow the system to be extended to Texas. There was a great struggle going on in the United States between the slave-bolding states and the non-slave-holding states. The parti es were balanced nearly, but if the state of 'Texas w as an nexed to the United States, the slove-holding States would be by far the most poker I. He could not help observing that the existence of Slavery was the most degrad ing feature in the whole system of the United States. MARRIAGE BILL. A message from the Lords brought up the Marriage Bill, as amended by their Lordships. The amendments were ordered to be printed. _ .. Lord PALMEASTON would say, in the beginning of his observations, that he did not feel himself at liberty to agree to the proposal for an address ; but he trusted that neither the Hon. Member (Mr. B. Hoy) nor the House would imagine that this was any proof that he did not feel the deep importance of the subject, or that the Government were not as much animated as the Hon. Member by a sincere desire to put an end to the evils to which mainly the address related. The observations that had been made by the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hay) and Ida Hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Ward) divided themselves into two branches, the one relating to the political part of the qnestion ; the other relating to the trade with slaves. With regard to the former, un doubtedly the possibility that the province of the State of Texes might be added to the United States of North America, would be a subject which ought seriously to engage the attention of the House and the Govern ment, but he (Lord Palmerston) did not think the events which had as yet occurred afforded any ground for thinking there was at present any such probability of that kind as to call on the House to address the Crown, with reference to such a mea sure. The state of Texas at present was this, that a revolt having taken place in that province, the Mexi can army had been dispatched, for the pnrpose of putting that revolt down. But it would be premature to infer, from what had taken place, what would be the ulti mate issue of the civil war now going on in that pro vince. ---(Hear, hear.) It was possible that the resis tance of the people of Texas might prevail againt the authorities of Mexico, but the Government of Mexico was preparing, according to the latest advices, to make fresh efforts to reinforce their army ; and therefore the House was not then in a condition to infer from any thing that had (LEFT SPEAKING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock. • COPYRIGHT (IRELAND) BILL. _ _ _ _ ________ On the motion of Lord'DUNCANNON this Bill was read a third time and passed. The Highway Rates Bill was also read a third time and passed. Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition against the Ecclesiastical Leases Bill. AFFAIRS OF SPAIN. Lord EXMOUTH begged to ask whether his Majesty's Government had received any information of the evacua tion of Vittoria by Cordova and the Christinos troops, and the subsequent possession of it by the Carlists? Lord MELBOURNE believed his Majesty's Govern ment had roceived no information of the kind. Captain CHETWYND and others from the Commons brought up the Hortons Estate Bill. GRAND JURIES (IRELAND.) Lord DUNCANNON brought up the report of the Committee on the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill. RAILWAYS. Messengers from the Commons brought up the railway resolutions agreed to by that House. (LEFT SITTING.) SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS The Standard ought at all events to quote ho nestly when it notices what we say. Remarking upon an article on the Irish Church question, in the Chro nicle of yesterday, our Contemporary says : _ _ " We have now to reconcile Lord John with the Morn ing Chronicle. The journal in question declares to-day, that the Bill as it left the House of Commons was not a good measure ; and that the 'appropriation clauses' alone, infused into it a healing property.'" What we did say has been grossly misrepresented in this extract, by the omission of four important words. We did not say that " the Bill as it left the House:of Commons was not a good measure ;" but we said—and we now repeat it—that " the Bill as it left the House of Commons was not a good measure in all its parts." The reader at once perceives the great dif ference between what we did say and what, by a shabby and contemptible suppression and mutilation, the Standard puts into our mouth. The vicious pur pose of this misrepresentation is manifest, even if the clipper had not been at the pains of exposing his mo tive by the following exclamation :—" There—is a character of a Ministerial measure, given by a Minis terial journal !" More we need not say about the matter—less we could not have said. Before the Standard next takes the trouble of reconciling Lord John with the Chronicle, he should first effect a re conciliation between himself and truth.—Morn.Chron. The Lords seem determined that no item shall be wanting to fill up the measure of their outrage on pub he opin►on, and the exercise of representative Govern ments. Last night the Charitable Trusts' Bill and the Catholic! Marriages Bill were sacrificed to heredita►y domination, and consigned to the tomb of the Capu lets. Desirable as are both these measures, we scarcely regret the fate to which they were consigned by the hezeditary branch of our Senate, as it must serve more distinctly to demonstrate the impossibility of effecting any great improvement in our system, while birth-right Senators are allowed to defeat the intentions of the Representatives of the people ; and in this way it may expedite that great change which is now become as essential to the preservation of our liberties, as it is to the prosperity and safety of the State. Can the people of Great Britain any longer hesitate between the Go vernment of their own Representatives and that of in dividuals whom a most absurd and indefensible system endows with the privilege of Legislators ? We have become almost tired of watching the progress of lordly insolence and despotism—we now wait for the end, which is rapidly approaching.—Morning Advertiser. We return to the discussion that occupied the House of Commons on Tuesday, and which, though the shortest, was nevertheless the most important, of all that have taken place on the subject—not from aught of novelty in argument or fact, for both, as we have said, were already exhausted but—because it has placed beyond the possibility of doubt the real cha racter of that measure which, called sometimes the " Irish Church Bill," and sometimes the " Irish Tithe Bill," may and should be, henceforth and always, de nominated, on the authority of the Prime Minister himself, a Bill "for giving a heavy blow to Protest antism in Ireland." It was of great importance that the real nature of the measure should be acknowledged as well as known, and we suppose that even the Mem bers of an unprincipled Government, who have still to answer for the iniquity of this anti-Protestant design, must feel their consciences somewhat lightened by the riddance of the gross duplicity which in regard to this Bill had previously disgraced them—for beneath " the lowest deep" in the slough of criminality there must ever be a " lower still," to which falsehood will drag down the most sunken sinner. At all events, the actual question at issue is now placed in so clear and so simple a point of view, that not even the dullest or the most dubious of the community can fail to understand it, nor the most. double-faced dare to dissemble concerning it. The question is, whether in this land, renowned through all the nations of the earth, ' chiefly, and above all things; for having burst asunder the bonds of spiritual tyranny, and freed the worship of the living God from the degrading and deceitful mummeries of Popery, a Government shall be allowed to deal " a heavy blow" —to give " a great discouragement" to Protestantism —or whether their impious and sacrilegious hand shall be stayed from defiling that ever blessed and imperish able work, and the memory of the glorious army • of martyrs, who secured to us with their blood the purity and liberty of religious worship which we enjoy, shall be protected from the scorn and insult with which these, their degenerate descendants, have dared openly to threaten it. Let the country decide, as assuredly it will, and at no very distant day, to the discomfiture and dishonour of those who have supported, or of those who have opposed this " Great Discouragement to Protestantism Bill." If the members of the Esta blishment and the Protestant Dissenters be not pre pared to resume the yoke of the Pope which their fore fathers threw off, there can be no doubt what the deci sion of the country will be. In the mean time we pro ceed with our notice of the discussion. If it required —as most of our readers will, probably, think it did—some powers of face in Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister of a Protestant Prince (who swore at his coronation that he would maintain the Protes tant religion), to propound to an assembly of Protes tants a measure for g►ving a heavy blow and great dis couragement to the faith in which they have been nur tured, it must be admitted that Lord John Russell made a most successful attempt to rival his leader in brazenness, when he ventured upon what he was pleased to call an explanation of the loss which the Irish Church had sustained, in being protected from Lord Melbourne's heavy blow and great discouragement to Protestantism. Had that blow been given—had Pro testantism received that discouragement, then, said Lord John Russell, all would have been well ; for the GovernMent would have stood pledged to maintain what remained of the Church of Ireland, and to pay to its ministers the pittance which, for the present, the Papists have agreed to allow the Government to give them out of their own property. We say, for the present, because the measure which assigns even that pittance to Protestant clergymen in Ireland is plainly declared by the Minis terial supporters to be a step only, and that they will by no means rest satisfied with only half-starving the clergy. It is openly proclaimed that this " heavy blow to Protestantism" is to be repeated at the first con venient opportunity. The impudence, then, of such a position as that of Lord J. Russell would, under these circumstances, have been remarkable, no matter from what quarter it proceeded—but coming from Lord John Russell, and taken by him on behalf of a Whig Government, it is eminently startling. Can Lord John Russell seriously proffer any political pledge of his as worth a straw—as any more to be depended upon than a broken reed ? Does he sup pose the public have forgotten that he pledged him self, so far as regarded Reform in Parliament, to con sider the Reform Act as afinal measure ; that, never• theless, in the English Municipal Corporations Bill, he inserted a clause depriving freemen of the elec tive franchise, which the Reform Act had secured to them ; that, moreover, on being reproached with this breach of faith, he said, " Why, the fact is, we re served to the freemen the elective franchise in the Re form Bill, in order to induce the Lords to pass it ; that reservation was a part of our bargain with the Lords—but we never intended to keep that part of the contract r Lord John Russell's pledges !—Bah —one might as well talk of Mr. O'Connell's vera city. But the Government—the Whig Government— would stand similarly pledged. Be it so. Is the value of the pledges of a Whig Government an unknown quantity in political calculations ? Let a glance at the history of this very question be our answer. In 1833 Lord Grey pledged himself and the Government over which he presided, that, until all the objects contem plated by the Church Temporalities Bill should be attained, Ministers would not think of diverting any part of the funds of the Church to other than cede siastical purposes. Lord Althorp, in the House of Commons, gave the same pledge, observing, " that every gentleman would, he thought, admit that the first claims to the funds of the Church were the claims of the Church itself." Well, the objects contem plated by that measure have not been attained : the fund winch, it was calculated, would be sufficient to effect them has proved insolvent ; and yet we have this Whig Bill for robbing the Church and giving a heavy blow and great discouragement to Protes tantism ! 0 rare pledge-redeemers ! But this is not all. In 1834 a Whig Government, of whick nearly all the present Ministers were Members, repeatedly and most solemnly pledged themselves not to attempt to carry into execution their views relative to appropriation until, besides a clear sur plus being ascertained, they should have vindicated the law and realized the revenues of the Church. This pledge was given generally on the part of the Go vernment, and formally in various speeches by Lord Grey, Lord Melbourne, Lord Althorp, Lord John Russell, Mr. Rice, and Mr. Littleton, now Lord Hatherton, as a reference to the debates of that year will demonstrate. And yet in 1835, Lord John Russell moved that factious resolution relative to appro priation which his honest colleagues one and all sup ported, and upon which they afterwards founded their first Bill for giving a heavy blow to Protestantism— the objects of the Church Temporalities' Bill being still unattained, the law not vindicated, nor the revenues of the Church realized, while, so far from a surplus having been ascertained, the fact of there being no sur plus at all, but, on the contrary, from the calculations of Ministers themselve3, a positive deficiency— has been placed beyond a doubt ! And such is the Go vernment whose pledges Lord John Russell unblush ingly proffers ai security to those who, by the bitter experience of that poverty to which the faithlessness of the Government has reduced them, know its pledges to be, on this subject at least, " false as dicers' oaths !" We cannot quit, even for the present, this speech of the leader of the House of Commons without a word or two upon the ridiculous but mischievous extrava gance of the Noble Lord's concluding observations. The House of Lords have refused to sanction a mca sure which, it is not concealed but confessed by its framers, will give a heavy blow and be a great discou ragement to Protestantism in Ireland. 'This Lord John Russell, with a degree of factiousness or of folly that ' it would be difficult to parallel even in the orations of the most rabid Radicals of St. Marylebone, compares to their Lordships' refusal to grant Catholic Emanci pation, and to concur in those measures which it was supposed might have reconciled the revolted colonies of North America to the mother country. If the object of this comparison be not apparent, its tendency is unhappily but too clear. The agitators in Ireland will perfectly well understand it, nor will they, we fear, find much difficulty in attaching a meaning to what his Lordship mouthed so grandiloquently about " blood shed," as though the loss of human life was an affair of no more consequence than, in his Lordship's opi nion, plundering the Protestant Church is. But we wain Lord John Russell and his colleagues, that in addressing this language to Ireland— " they but teach Bloody instructions, which, being taught, return To plague the inventor." —Times. STRANGE, YET TRUE !—Every reader must still recollect the fearful thunder-storm of the sth July, the water spout rain that fell in such torrents, the damage done by streams that ran wild to the sea, and the long list of accidents of various kinds which filled at the time more than two columns of this paper. Well, near to the Crook Inn, on the Edin burgh line of road, where the storm raged with great violence, a burn crosses subterraneously the King's highway, by means of a bridge, pond, or cundy. This burn, which, amidst the droughts of summer is a mere thread of silver, margined by green, presented a totally different aspect on the sth ult., and leaped from its native heights so tumultuously that the road arch was choked, and finally carried away, abutments and all, with the exception of a few stones at the bottom. The exact width of the cundy we have not heard ; but it was macdamized like the adjoining portions of road, and, linked to these, not only remained firm after the arch had fallen, but sustained the weight of his Majesty's mail. When the accident became known to the roadmen, one of their number was stationed near to the spot, to apprise the guard and diver in travelling from the metropolis of what had occurred, and thus forewarned, they took out the horses, and pushed or drew the coach across with so much ease and safety that the precaution adopted ap peared to be unnecessary.—Dumfries Courier. A certain degree of alarm was excited on Friday af ternoon by the arrival, at the Prefecture of Police, of a car riage, escorted by four gendarmes of the banlieu, containing five persons, one of whom had no other upper covering than his shirt, the sleeves of which were tucked up. It was soon ascertained that they had been brought from Neuilly, and the agitation increased. The following, however, are the facts : —Three young students, with the mistress of one of them, on Friday morning took an excursion on the Seine, in a boat, and, being tired with rowing, engaged a workman raising shingle to assist them. Carried on by the stream, they entered a branch of the Seine which runs into the King's Park, with out observing a notice posted up, forbidding any one to pass further. While they were admiring the beauty of the scenery, they were descried by some of the keepers in the grounds, and made to land. They were conducted before the Commis sary of Police at Neuilly, who, notwithstanding the explana tions given by the party, thought it his duty to send them to the Prefecture. After a short examination they were all dis charged.—Constitutionnel. As the season advances, we begin, we confess, to get very gloomy as to the prospect before us. Of bright summer weather we have hardly a scantling, with the excep tion of a few days in the end of June and beginning of July. But the thunder storm proved the precursor of a most disastrous change, and up to the 31st a constant succession of squalls and floods lowered the temperature to such a degree that fires be came as necessary as they are in December. And August, which has come, has done nothing to brighten the prospect as yet. Monday, the Ist, was a most bitter day; from morning to night the trees reeled under the blast ; rain, too, fell heavily at intervals, and, in one instance, was mixed with hail.—Dum. fries Courier. On Tuesday afternoon a lighterman, named Stout, in the employ of Mr. Pocock, the coal-merchant, fell over board from one of his master's craft, lying off the Temple, and was seen by several persons struggling in the water, but al though immediate assistance was rendered, he was carried under the barges and perished. Several boats with the drags, from the Port Mahon Thames Police ship, were soon on the spot, and a search was made for the body, but it could not be found. The deceased was seen just before the accident sitting on the deck, with his back reclining against the bollard, and he is supposed to have fallen asleep, and while in that state the barge must have given a lurch, and thrown him into the water. He has left a wife and four young children unprovided for. IMPERIAL PARLIAMEN T ROUSE OF LORDS, AUGUST 4. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat at the usual hour. The Earl of RIPON presented a petition from the Bishop of Sodor and Man against the annexation of that see to that of Carlisle. The petitioner had been in posses sion of the bishopric for ten years, had discharged the duties which devolved on him in an exemplary manner, and was now prompted to make this application to their Lordships from a regard for the interests of his successors, as he was himself now advanced in years, and could not be disturbed during his lifetime. Lord STRAFFORD presented a petition in favour of the Charitable Trusts Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a petition from Manchester, in favour of the Beer Bill. The Duke of RICHMOND informed their Lordships that, with respect to the Poor-Rate Bill, there were amend ments proposed which were worthy of attention, and he should, therefore, postpone the consideration of the subject until Monday. _ . Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition against one of the clauses in the Municipal Corporations Act. The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition in favour of the Charitable Trusts Bill. The Earl of HADDINGTON presented a petition from Finglas, in Ireland, complaining that that district contained 400 Protestant inhabitants ; and upon their ap plying for 450/. i❑ order to repair the church, they re ceived an answer that the Commissioners had not funds sufficient to supply half the demands upon them for such objects. He should be glad to know where the Noble Viscount's (Melbourne) surplus was to be found, if such claims as that which he had stated could not be satisfied. After a few words from Lord HATHERTON, which could not be heard with distinctness in the gallery, The Marquis of CLANRICARDE observed, that he had passed by the church in question, and from its appear ance he should say it was capable of containing 400 per sons. When the Noble Earl (Haddington) taunted those at his side of the House with there being no surplus, and founded that taunt upon the alleged fact, that in one parish of Ireland a church was in want of repair, he begged to remind the Noble Earl that his opposition was against the extent of the whole establishment being greater than the want of those connected with it. He should like to know also how many policemen there were in that parish ? Lord FITZGERALD said that the fact of a number of the inhabitants of a parish being policemen did not do away with the necessity of providing them with a fit place for religious worship ; particularly when it was considered that their being policemen was prima facie evidence of their good conduct and respectability of character. He bore testimony, from his knowledge of the reception which similar applications from other parishes met with, of the justness of the complaint made by the petitioners, as to the refusal of the commissioners to comply with their request from their want of means to enable them to do so.' The Marquis of WESTMEATH said that in his parish the windows were actually falling out of the church for want of repair, and they could not procure any assis tance from the Commissioners. The petition was laid on the table. BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILL. The Duke of RICHMOND, in moving that the report on the Bill be received, asked their Lordships whether, after a Committee had sat upon the subject for fifty days in the House of Commons, and it had also been inquired into by a Committee of their Lordships, which sat for eighteen days from ten in the morning until the time at which the House met, after an examination and cross-ex amination on behalf of every one of these lines, and after having given the fullest inquiry to the matters brought before it, was it right that that Committee, instead of re porting their opinion on the Bill, should shirk the question, and move as an amendment on the second resolution, that it was inexpedient to proceed with it any further ? Now, their Lordships would see that the great advantage of this decision to the opposing lines was, that it enabled them to concentrate against Stephenson's line the oppo sition of all those Peers who were favourable to either of the other lines. But it was said that the speculators in this instance had no right to complain. In his opinion they had a fair ground for complaint ; for, if there were not private individuals to come forward to promote works of the greatest magnitude and benefit with their capital, the Government of this country, like those of other countries, would be driven to apply for disbursements from the public purse to promote works of essential value to the community. This Company had a right to call on their Lordships, and he thought they had a right to say which of these lines was the best. But was it the Company whose rights he was advo cating? No ; but those of the community. Did they think that persons of substantial capital would come for ward on these speculations if they were subject to an ex pense of 100,0001., and after such an outlay were told by the House of Lords, " We can't make up our minds on the subject of your Bill." Was it of no importance also that the landowners between the Metropolis and the town of Brighton should be kept in a state of suspense with regard to a work so important to them and the public, and that a wide field should be opened to every little pettifogging attorneyin this town or out of it, to come forward and issue prospectuses of the great advantages which would flow from adopting their respective lines ? Would it be any satisfaction to those whose capital might be lost in such speculations that a Committee of the House of Lords not having done their duty was the cause of their misfortune ? The Committee might have said that Stephenson's line was not the best that could be found, if proper search were made. That would have been intelligible and fair ; but by the course which they had adopted they collected, in opposition to Stephen son's line, the vote of those Peers whose opinions were in favour of either of the other lines He warned their Lord ships against allowing the Committees of that House; which had hitherto maintained a high character in the opinion of the country, to fall into disrepute ; an event which, if it did arise, would do more to shake the existence of their Lord ships' House than any line of conduct which could be pur sued by them.—( Hear, hear.) The Duke of CUMBERLAND believed that no two Peers of the Committee could form an opinion as to which of the four lines was the best. He did not mean to commit himself by expressing his approval or disapproval of any of the four lines; but be agreed with the decision of the Com mittee. As to a canvass of voters he knew nothing of it, and never countenanced such a proceeding. The Earl of ABINGDON supported the view of the Committee. After a few words from Lords MONSON and WHARN CLIFFE, ENGLISH TITHE BILL.—CONFERENCE. Lord J. RUSSELL and others appeared at the Bar, and requested a Conference with their Lordships on the subject of certain amendments in the Commutation of Tithes (England and Wales) Bill. On the motion of the Marquis of LANSDO WNE, the Conference was agreed to, and the Managers of the Con ference appointed, namely—the Lord President, the Lord Privy Seal, the Earl of Albemarle, Lord Say and Scale, the Earl of Minto, Lord Falkland, and the Bishop of Hereford, who forthwith withdrew to committee-room No. 5, where the Conference was appointed to take place. On the return of the Noble Managers of the Conference, The LORD PRESIDENT announced that. the Com mons had agreed to some of their Lordships' amendments, and disagreed from others, for which they had given their reasons, which the Noble Marquis then read. On the motion of the same Noble Lord, the reasons were then ordered to be printed, and to be taken into consideration to-morrow. BRIGHTON RAILWAY BILL. The Earl of GLENGALL said he would take upon him to say that every Noble Lord who had spoken in the Committee had agreed that Stephenson's line was the best. The Marquis of CL AN RICARDE did not understand that it was agreed upon on all hands that Stephenson's line was in every respect the best, but that from the plans which were made for it, it appeared to be the best made out, and the most practicable. If a Government Commis sion had been in existence similar to that appointed at the motion of the Noble Lord President for the railways of Ireland, that Commission would never have decided that Stephenson's was the line for selection. After a few observations from Lord WHARNCLIFFE, which did not reach us, The Duke of RICHMOND thought that Stephenson's line had been treated very harshly by the Committee, who had taken an unwarrantable liberty in refusing to comply with the Standing Order of the House. The Noble Duke concluded by moving that this Bill be recommitted. The Duke of CUMBERLAND, after a few words of _ _ explanation, said that as to popularity, the Noble Duke who had just spoken had very much mistaken his character if he supposed that if popularity were to be obtained by the mere act of walking to the window, he (the Duke of Cumberland) would go there.—(Hear, hear.) He should certainly vote against the recommittal of this Bill. The Duke of BEAUFORT could not concur in the charge of - unfairness which bad been brought against the proceedings of the Committee, though he agreed with the Noble Duke on the cross-benches in his observations upon the manner in which their report had been framed. The Earl of FALMOUTH had never entered any Committee-room where the members appeared to be more desirous to act with perfect fairness and impartiality than those sitting in Committee upon this Bill. Lord HOLLAND asked where the Bill now was, whe ther before the Committee or in the possession of the House ? The Duke of RICHMOND said, that the Bill had been reported, and was now on the table. The Earl of CHICHESTER was under a strong hn pression that the preamble of the Bill had not been proved. The Duke of BUCCLEUCI would not enter upon the discussion of the question before the Nouse, but he could not sit by in silence and hear such expressions applied ' to a Select Committee of their Lordships' House as had, been used by the Noble Duke on the cross-benches. The , Noble Duke talked of the " unwarrantable liberty" which had been taken by the Committee on this Bill, and also their unfairness towards Mr.. stephenson's line, an ex pression which he afterwards softened down to harshness. With respect to the conduct of the Committee on this Bill, he would only remark that upon every occasion when he happened to be present, they seemed to be conducting the inquiry with great fairness and impartiality. The Duke of RICHMOND explained. The Marquis of LANSDOWNE did not think that by recommitting this bill they would be casting any cen sure upon the Select Committee, and he should certainly vote in favour of the motion for that purpose. The Earl of WESTMORELAND thought that after all the expense and time spent upon this undertaking, and after the attention which the Legislature had been called upon to give to the subject, the country had a right to know the opinion of the Committee upon the merits of the whole question, in order to know what course to take up another year. After a few words from the Earl of WARWICK, which were inaudible, The Earl of ABINGDON explained. Lord HOLLAND observed that when a Bill was re ferred to a Committee of their Lordships' House, that Committee disobeyed an express injunction of the House, when it did nut report upon that which was especially re ferred to them, whether the preamble of the Bill had been proved or not. The Marquis of SALISBURY must say that, for all practical purposes, the resolutions of their Lordships had been complied with. The Duke of RICHMOND should now move, " That the Committee be directed to re-assemble to report spe cially upon the evidence and the preamble of the Bill." The Marquis of CLA NRICARDE thought that the best way of getting rid of the position in which they were placed was to have the report received on Monday. The Duke of CUMBERLAND stated, every day for a fortnight that he was a member of the Committee letters were sent to him stating that a division would take place. He took no more notice of such letters than he did of any thing he saw in the newspapers. Lord WHARNCLIFFE thought the report should be brought up, and then taken into consideration. After a few words from Lord REDESDALE, Lord WHARNCLIFFE moved as an amendment upon the Duke of Richmond's motion, that the report be now taken into consideration. Vu Their Lordships then divided on the motion of the Duke of Richmond— Non-contents. Contents 42 Majority —2 The Bill was consequently lost. STAFFORD BOROUGH BRIBERY PREVEN- TION BILL. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE moved the second reading of this Bill. No one could doubt that there had losen the most flagrant bribery and corruption in the borough. This was a poor punishment for such an offence. Their Lordships, however, had decided otherwise, and he now offered this Bill entirely out of respect to their Lordships ; because if it went to the public, that when such a case as this was established, they were not disposed to put a stop to the practices disclosed in it—if they did this, it would give great room for those who were found inclined to attack their Lordships, to declare that that House was not disposed to put an end to bribery and corruption.—(Hear, hear.) The Bill proposed to disfranchise the burgesses ; at the same time regulations were made, as many of them were householders, to enable them to register in that capacity, before another election could take place. Of the 850 bur gesses of Stafford, it was admitted that 700 were distinctly proved to have been bribed. This occurred in the elections of 1831, 1832, and 1835. He moved that the Bill be read a second time. . . The Earl of DEVON moved, as an amendment, that the Bill be read this day three months. The Duke of WELLINGTON thought that the Bill before the House was brought forward upon some very cu rious circumstances. First of all, after reciting that cor ruption existed in the borough, it did not propose what would be fair, that those who received bribes should be punished ; no, but that the burgesses and freemen should be disfranchised. These were the burgesses and freemen un der old charters, and not those enrolled under the Corpo ration Act. Now there. was no proof of bribery against some of the former, and there was distinct proof of bribery against many of the latter. Another curious circumstance was, that those disfranchised as burgesses and freemen, on the ground of bribery, were permitted to register as house holders, and would thus be again open to corruption. This was the Noble Marquis's cure for corruptiot;. Now he (the Duke of Wellington) had brought in a Bill, w hich would really put down corruption, but this Bill was thrown out in another place. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER wished, in connection with this subject, to notice a very gross misrepresentation respecting the conduct of the prelates on the Stafford Dis franchisement Bill the other night. This misrepresenta tion appeared in The Morning Chronicle, as to the conduc t of the prelates on the second reading of this Bill. It was asserted that this Bill was. rejected, and that in its rejection the prelates took a part, for that the whole bench of bishops had voted against it. Had this been true, he was not aware that there would have been any discredit in their 50 voting, though the Morning Chronicle built upon it a Iva" lignant invective against the prelates, and charged the with encouraging every case of profligacy and every bag measure. Now their Lordships would recollect that u pon the occasion of that division taking place, though all the prelates were present, on account of a Bill in which theY were peculiarly interested, yet all but three left the House , and out of thirty no more than that number voted. The Right Rev. Prelate concluded by saying that he thought this Bill was not one sufficient for the purposes it proposed to effect. It appeared to him to be a one-sided measure. Lord WHARNCLIFFE considered this one of the many attempts that had been made since the passing of the Reform Bill to disfranchise the freemen. Let them disfrae" chise those who were proved to have received bribes, aria by doing so they would prevent them from ever voting to . 10/. householders. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE remarked, that when he brought forward one measure he was told it vats too sweeping and too extensive, and now he was told this was a partial measure. If they went into Committee, they might insert a clause excepting those who were not bribed , and this would leave not more than 1.50 of the freemen who would come under the operation of such an exTeption. Lord LYNDHURST remarked, that amongst those who were called Tories, there was no disposition to pro-. teat bribery. It was proved with respect to Stafford that in the election for 1826 the persons who bribed wer e Spooner, a Whig; Beaumont, a Whig; in 1832, Chet' wynd, a Whig, Gronow, a Whig, Blount, a Whig, wer e guilty of bribery —no bribery on the part of the Toriet In 1831 the person who bribed was Campbell—he belieYe6 a Whig—(Laughter)—and at the next election the briber was Gronow, a well-known Whig.—(Laughter.) The Marquis of CLANRICARDE had said noth'ieg about Whigs or Tories. There had been Whig borongili mongers, and, unfortunately for the country, there ba been more Tories than Whigs who were boroughmonger s • Lord STRAFFORD should support the present Bill. The Marquis of SALISBURY thought it better than adopting a Bill of this kind to move for an address to his Majesty to direct the Attorney-General to prosecute all the parties proved to be guilty of bribery. The Lord CHANCELLOR would ask their Lordships. then, whether by rejecting this Bill they would say tlie there was to be no remedy at all for that which all admitte to be a great evil ? He begged to suggest to their Lord ships the propriety of, at all events, reaing the Bill a 0 cond time, and in the Committee they might endeavour t o ascertain the mode by which justice could be done to 0 individuals. The Earl of FALMOUTH objected to his side of the House having been alluded to as being averse to the pu nishment of bribery and corruption. After a few words in explanation from Lord W oAltr CLIFFE and the Marquis Of CLANRICARDE, Their Lordships divided on the amendment, when the numbers were— - Contents Non-contents Majority in favour of the amendment _l6 The Bill is consequently lost. 0 0, Mr. WAKLEY, and other Members from the Comm° to brought up the Medical Witnesses Bill and two Pri ° Bills, all of which were forwarded a stage. CHARITABLE TRUSTEES BILL. The LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the sec ° ,,i 6 readily -, of the Charitable Trustees Bill, regretted that t" . . Bill had not come up sooner to their Lordships' 1 1 ° 135 ,:a but considering the number of persons who were interes'to in the subject, he trusted their Lordships would c onsent °n , ' pass the Bill. The Noble and Learned Lord, in coneltisi°, alluded to some proceedings in the Corporation of rrrur as evidence of the necessity for the measure. The Earl of FALMOUTH defended the Corporation of Truro. The Duke of WELLINGTON said that a Noble - fochla Learned Lord (Lord Brougham), whose absence be In u ca .. regretted, and it wa s th e more to be regretted on this. °cos. sion, because if he h a d b een present the pain of thi s cl 5 t he sion would have b een avoided, introduced a clause i ow h ioli Municipal Corporations Reform Bill of last Session , ee d provided th a t th ose persons who heretofore had adniinis tine the charitabl e f un ds were to continue in the admieistra e of We of them up to the Ist of August in this year. The 13 `'. 1 e to tiro the Noble and Leortivd Lord was, to give himself ~; `. THE S ,LONDON, FRIDAY, AUGUST 5, IS3t. .:-..~.